M.B.SHARMA,J. - (1.) UNDER challenge is Annexure 3, an order of the Development Officer, Panchyat Samiti Weir, District. Bharatput dated March 19, 1989. Under the aforesaid order the petitioner Sarpanch of the Gram Panchyat Samiti, Bhootoli has been asked that since under the section of the Collector, Bharatpur, a Committee for execution of the works has been constituted he should hand over the charge to Shri Khubiram, teacher Primary School Jahanpur within three days. It has also been mentioned to hand over the charge of wheat, cash, and goods given to him in connection with the execution of the works.
(2.) THE aforesaid order has been challenged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner primarily on the ground that under Section 24 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (for shot the Act) the execution of the work has to been done through the agency of the Panchyat and no interference can be made by any authority. The Panchyat Samiti, Weir, District. Bharatpur sanctioned the amounts of Rs. 53,000/ - and Rs. 51,000/ - for construction of Primary School Building at villages Bhootoli and Jahanpur respectively. The construction of the said two School Building was in progress and as per the case of the petitioner, part of the work had been completed and a cheque of Rs. 17,000/ - for completion of the work of the aforesaid two schools was prepared by the petitioner and was cancelled on December 12, 1988. The petitioner made a complaint to the Zila Parishad against the non -petitioner No. 3 and the Chief Executive Officer and Secretary, Zila Parishad, Bharatpur sought explanation from respondent No. 3. A decision was taken which was communicated by the respondent No. 3 by order dated March 15, 1989 that the work of the two Primary Schools has not been done by the village Panchayat. In the reply submitted on behalf of the non -petitioner No. 3 it is not disputed that a cheque of Rs. 17,000/ - was prepared but was subsequently cancelled. The cancellation of the aforesaid cheque is said to have been done on the ground that a complaint has been received against the petitioner about his conduct by one Nathu, Singh, Gram Sewak of the Panchyat, about the collection of Rs. 1,500/ - by the petitioner in education fund but deposited only Rs. 1,400/ - retaining the balance amount with him. In the said report it was given out that a sum of Rs. 1,500/ - has been collected where as Rs. 1,400/ - has been deposited. This all happened on December 1, 1988 after the cheque of Rs. 17,000/ - was prepared but later on was cancelled. The petitioner himself is said to have admitted that a sum of Rs. 1,500/ - was lying with him and he will deposit the same. It will therefore appear that a Committee for supervision of the execution of the works, including the construction of the two School Building was appointed consisting of the Secretary, Panchayat, one teacher, two Ward Panchs and one villager. Some instructions have been issued by the Special Schemes and Rural Development Department, Government of Rajasthan in May, 1985 where in Clause 9 it has been provided that the works undertaken under the National Rural Schemes should not be given on contract and they should be executed through the agency of the Panchayat and the Panchayat Samiti. But the District Rural Development Agency feels that the work should not be got executed through the medium of the Panchayat or the Panchayat Samiti and the same work should be got executed through a the Departmental Agency. No doubt under Section 24 of the Act generally it is the responsibility of the Panchayat that any programme which the Panchayat Samiti decides to carry out for the benefit of any one Panchayat circle must be carried out or executed through the Agency of the Panchayat or the Panchayat Circle, but for reasons to be recorded if the Panchayat Samiti who has initiated the programme feels that it will not be in the interest of the works that they should be executed through the Agency of the Panchayat and decided that they should be executed through a committee to be appointed, we are of the opinion that there can be no bar to it and the Sarpanch of the Panchayat Samiti can have no objection If a committee is appointed as aforesaid, still the work will be said to be executed through the Agency of the Panchayat. In the instance case it appears that there are some allegations against the Sarpanch about the truth of which we say nothing. If a decision was taken to get the work executed through the committee after the sanction of the Collector, we find no case for interference in our extra -ordinary jurisdiction. We are unable to say that the work can only be executed through the Sarpanch and only then it can be said to be executed through the Agency of the Panchayat. That apart we are unable to read 'shall' as mandatory looking to the Scheme of the Act.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY the writ is dismissed.;